Parliament descended into a heated debate on Tuesday night as MPs on the ad hoc committee investigating explosive claims of police corruption grappled with whether DA MP Dianne Kohler-Barnard should step aside after being accused of political interference by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Leak of classified information
Kohler-Barnard, a seasoned parliamentarian and alternate member of the committee, has vehemently denied the allegations, which centre on claims that she improperly disclosed classified intelligence information — an accusation made by Mkhwanazi during his sworn testimony at the Madlanga judicial commission of inquiry.
The ad hoc committee, mandated to probe alleged misconduct and interference in the criminal justice system, suddenly found itself at the centre of a storm over its own composition. At the core of the impasse is whether mere mention of a member’s name at the commission of inquiry—or elsewhere—should trigger recusal from the parliamentary committee.
Sharp divisions
The issue has sharply split MPs along party and procedural lines. EFF leader Julius Malema forcefully argued against what he saw as a rush to judgement.
“You can’t reduce this committee to be a subcommittee of the commission,” Malema warned. “That everything else that’s happening in the commission must happen in our committee. There is a commission, for whatever reason, and there is this ad hoc committee, for whatever reason. It can’t be that that person just gets mentioned loosely and then we get overwhelmed.”
Malema insisted that recusal should only be considered on clear grounds of conflict of interest, not on the mere mention of a name.
“None of us is speaking about conflict because recusal must be on the basis of conflict. No one says here, ‘Is there conflict?’. No one can establish the conflict, but we are readily available to get the member recused,” Malema continued.
“I’m not part of such an arrangement where the rights of people get humiliated and violated the way we want to do it; it’s wrong. I disagree, chair.”
IFP MP Albert Mngcwango echoed Malema’s view, stressing that the committee should act only on facts presented before it, and not on hearsay or external allegations.
“The name of the honourable Kohler-Barnard was actually mentioned in another forum. It has actually not been mentioned before this committee,” Mngcwango said, adding, “Some people might say we are actually acting on the basis of hearsay because there is nothing substantive that actually has been put before this committee, where honourable Kohler-Barnard is a member or is an alternate member.
“So, I also am not very comfortable taking a position that actually would say she must withdraw herself.”
Testimony under oath
But others saw things differently. Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls, referring to Mkhwanazi’s testimony under oath at the Madlanga commission, argued that the seriousness of the forum could not be ignored.
“This ad hoc committee and the entire commission were formed on the basis of a press conference by Lt-Gen Mkhwanazi. And the witnesses that are being called are simply on the basis of the names mentioned in a press conference,” Sauls said.
“In this instance, the name of Honourable Kohler-Barnard was not mentioned at a press conference. It was mentioned under oath. The platform carries even more weight than the press conference.”
He concluded, “Therefore, honourable Kohler-Barnard must withdraw herself from the committee. And like all the other witnesses, service providers, or other persons of interest, an opportunity should be provided to respond to the allegations made against her.”
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach, a former prosecutor, was succinct: “I don’t believe that it’s necessary for the honourable Kohler-Barnard to withdraw at this stage.”
Act with consistency
ANC chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli called for the committee to act with consistency in applying principles.
“It’s worrying me. It’s really worrying me. And I hope that as the committee, we will have a way in which we act with some degree of consistency and respect for some principles,” Ntuli said.
He noted the tension between acting on names mentioned under oath and ensuring that not all external claims become grounds for action.
“You are no longer dealing with matters that were mentioned in a press conference. You are also now dealing with names as mentioned under oath [at the commission]. And I think as members of parliament, I understand us to respect the oath that we too have taken to become members of parliament.”
‘We’re here because we represent the people’
Summing up, the chairperson of the committee Soviet Lekganyane reminded MPs of the weight of public expectations: “We are not in this parliament on our own account. We are in this parliament because we represent people who belong to a society that has established values.
“The bar of leadership is set very high, and in leadership, in most cases, before the eyes of the ordinary people, leadership is not justified by law. Leadership is justified by morality. And the unfortunate part is that morality is never legislated.”
